So what's a sexual context?
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 12:04:10
Maybe this has occurred to others already....but in putting up my last post, this thought occurred.
'Sexual context' must be about the mindset of the viewer. Otherwise, an obvious defence when the police seize some fairly extreme imagery, is that it is so obscene/extreme/whatever, that no person COULD view it in a sexual context...and therefore whilst you were viewing NASTY stuff...you weren't viewing it SEXUALLY.
So how on earth would the police prove 'sexual context' or 'sexual intent'? Many of the more extreme violent images show violence and very little that is erotic to anyone who is not turned on by that sort of thing.
So presumably, the police would have to make a case a) that the individual was turned on by that sort of imagery and b) that the individual was turned on by the image in particular.
Serious question...part for the lawyers....part for everyone else.
Regards,
M
Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 13:13:44
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> So how on earth would the police prove 'sexual context' or 'sexual
> intent'? Many of the more extreme violent images show violence
> and very little that is erotic to anyone who is not turned on by
> that sort of thing.
I think (although off-hand I haven't got anything to back it up) the
previous rationalisation (in child porn cases) has been that eg if there
is a "questionable" image found on someone's computer amongst a whole
bunch of legal-but-pornographic material then that is enough to
demonstrate a "sexual context".
Cheers,
Graham.
SnowdropExplodes, 23 Oct 2005 14:49:30
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Maybe this has occurred to others already....but in
> putting up my last post, this thought occurred.
>
> 'Sexual context' must be about the mindset of the
> viewer. Otherwise, an obvious defence when the
> police seize some fairly extreme imagery, is that it
> is so obscene/extreme/whatever, that no person COULD
> view it in a sexual context...and therefore whilst
> you were viewing NASTY stuff...you weren't viewing
> it SEXUALLY.
>
> So how on earth would the police prove 'sexual
> context' or 'sexual intent'? Many of the more
> extreme violent images show violence and very little
> that is erotic to anyone who is not turned on by
> that sort of thing.
>
> So presumably, the police would have to make a case
> a) that the individual was turned on by that sort of
> imagery and b) that the individual was turned on by
> the image in particular.
>
> Serious question...part for the lawyers....part for
> everyone else.
The text of the consultation paper has this:
'40. In (c) above, “serious violence” will involve or
will appear to involve serious bodily harm in a
context or setting which is sexual – for example,
images of suffocation or hanging with sexual
references in the way the scenes are
presented.'
It seems that they believe that there is some
objective measure of "sexual context or setting",
although what that might be is never defined. What
constitutes a "sexual reference" in the way a scene is
presented?
Everything else in the proposals is really pretty
specific and clearly laid-out, but this issue has not
been addressed at all.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 15:50:38
So, er, if its in a bedroom its sexual....but if its Abu Ghraib its not.
Great! Long may the US army produce masturbatory material for the masses.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> --- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Maybe this has occurred to others already....but in
> > putting up my last post, this thought occurred.
> >
> > 'Sexual context' must be about the mindset of the
> > viewer. Otherwise, an obvious defence when the
> > police seize some fairly extreme imagery, is that it
> > is so obscene/extreme/whatever, that no person COULD
> > view it in a sexual context...and therefore whilst
> > you were viewing NASTY stuff...you weren't viewing
> > it SEXUALLY.
> >
> > So how on earth would the police prove 'sexual
> > context' or 'sexual intent'? Many of the more
> > extreme violent images show violence and very little
> > that is erotic to anyone who is not turned on by
> > that sort of thing.
> >
> > So presumably, the police would have to make a case
> > a) that the individual was turned on by that sort of
> > imagery and b) that the individual was turned on by
> > the image in particular.
> >
> > Serious question...part for the lawyers....part for
> > everyone else.
> The text of the consultation paper has this:
> '40. In (c) above, “serious violence” will involve or
> will appear to involve serious bodily harm in a
> context or setting which is sexual – for example,
> images of suffocation or hanging with sexual
> references in the way the scenes are
> presented.'
> It seems that they believe that there is some
> objective measure of "sexual context or setting",
> although what that might be is never defined. What
> constitutes a "sexual reference" in the way a scene is
> presented?
> Everything else in the proposals is really pretty
> specific and clearly laid-out, but this issue has not
> been addressed at all.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
fobix, 23 Oct 2005 17:02:19
Presumably the "way the scene is presented" bit means that if the
bottom is in a gimp mask (or something similarly pornish) it's sexual,
but if it's just footage of an actual assault where there weren't
those visual porn cues around it wouldn't be considered sexual.
On 23/10/05, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> So, er, if its in a bedroom its sexual....but if its Abu Ghraib its not.
>
> Great! Long may the US army produce masturbatory material for the masses.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
Laurence, 24 Oct 2005 03:56:59
Author wrote:
> Presumably the "way the scene is presented" bit means that if the
> bottom is in a gimp mask (or something similarly pornish) it's sexual,
> but if it's just footage of an actual assault where there weren't
> those visual porn cues around it wouldn't be considered sexual.
> On 23/10/05, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > So, er, if its in a bedroom its sexual....but if its Abu Ghraib its not.
> > Great! Long may the US army produce masturbatory material for the masses.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > M
The late John Willie who produced bondage images hit a similar problem in the early and middle of the last century. So he produced photos of bound and gagged adult females with the legend
"Don't let this happen to you - Learn Ju-Jitsu" printed onto the photographs - they were thus no longer sexual. (yeah - right) Build a better mousetrap - build a better mouse.
John Willie (1902 - 1962)
The Adventures of Sweet Gwendoline by John Willie
John Willie's Bizarre
Kind regards
Laurence
frederic bloggs, 24 Oct 2005 10:27:19
Author wrote:
> Presumably the "way the scene is presented" bit means that if the
> bottom is in a gimp mask (or something similarly pornish) it's sexual,
> but if it's just footage of an actual assault where there weren't
> those visual porn cues around it wouldn't be considered sexual.
Which would make the non-conscenual torture and Gay rape scene in Pulp Fiction sexual and fall foul of the act, as there is a man in a gimp mask present.
Presuming anything is very dangerous in this context, it is also the most dangerous area of the consultation document, in that the criteria for what meets a catergory iii or iv image is based on a woolly premise and has no hard rules of definition.
And yes I know you were just using it as an example, I was just pointing out the difficulty in defining this.
backdooruk, 24 Oct 2005 10:44:04
Grahamwrote:
? the previous rationalisation (in child porn cases) has been that eg if there
> is a "questionable" image found on someone's computer amongst a whole
> bunch of legal-but-pornographic material then that is enough to
> demonstrate a "sexual context".
I think it's even worse than that. Category A pictures of children (the mildest under the child pornography law) are those of naked or semi naked children presented in 'an erotic context'. In practice this has meant *any* naked or semi-naked picture of a child that the defendant has no legitimate defense for having.
So I suspect that if this becomes law, unless you can provide a good reason for having a picture of violence, you will be prosecutable, even if you have the picture for non sexual reasons.
- Chris
John Thow, 24 Oct 2005 11:11:42
> I think it's even worse than that. Category A pictures of children (the mildest under the child pornography law) are those of naked or semi naked children presented in 'an erotic context'. In practice this has meant *any* naked or semi-naked picture of a child that the defendant has no legitimate defense for having.
>
> So I suspect that if this becomes law, unless you can provide a good reason for having a picture of violence, you will be prosecutable, even if you have the picture for non sexual reasons.
>
> - Chris
70% of the images in Operation Ore convictions fell into this category
but if the poor sod involved had ever looked at one single higher
category SAP image, this would be used to define sentencing.
It is vital to understand that in this area viewing=making and
possession can mean any file or file fragment that is found on your PC
after forensic analysis. If an 'indecent image' is found, you are
effectively guilty unless you can prove that the image was acquired
accidentally. I know of one Operation Ore case where the guy was victim
of CC fraud but was convicted on the basis of a single child porn file,
downloaded from a P2P service which was named quite innocuously e.g.
Disneyland and had been downloaded along with similarly named files.
The net effect is as if your TV continuously recorded all your channel
hopping and sly or accidental peeks at 'naughty' programmes. All of
this information will be used to show that you are a dangerous pervert.
JT